At this rate, it will be tomorrow before we know who the next President is. So far, been a typical vote count night. Nothing to out of the strange, maybe we'll get some action later tonight. It's been a yawn tonight from watching it play out on TV. Maybe if I was in a swing state. Good thing for good colorful commentary on-line with friends.

It's amazing that Kerry hasn't contested any of those states. But when I went to bed last night at 3:00 A.M. there were a lot of stats that were still way to close to call. I honestly thought things would be diffrent.

Though I guess my dad was right, if this was a ploy by democrats Kerry would conced. Which my dad's theory was that that the democrats set Kerry up so in 2008 Hill Clinton could run for President. Which in turn is kind of a crazy thought. Considering that former President Clinton wants the job of Kofi. They would be the two most powerful people in the world.

Ohio is the only state that matters for Kerry, and even though it's really close, he'd have to win an unrealistic amount of the provisional ballots.

I don't think he conceeded as any kind of "ploy" - he conceeded because he didn't want to drag this out any further when the chances of his winning were slim to none. Whether this was part of some larger plan for the Democratic party, keep in mind that this was Kerry's chance, and he's admitting that he didn't make it. It's probably very emotional for him, and I feel bad for him. I would have felt bad for Bush if the roles had been reversed - I hate it when people are hurt and upset, and that's probably some of what Kerry is feeling.

I am well aware of it.
I'm not saying that this is not a Bush victory.
All I'm saying is no victory speeches should be made until every state is accounted for as either Kerry or Bush. Not that it makes a difference. It just seems terrible to me that either Kerry or Bush would give speeches when not all the states are accounted for.

I guess it is more a symbolic things. What sort of message does it send to those who voted in those states? That their vote does not count?

I guess it really does not matter.
Just the principle of it, I suppose.

"All I'm saying is no victory speeches should be made until every state is accounted for as either Kerry or Bush. Not that it makes a difference. It just seems terrible to me that either Kerry or Bush would give speeches when not all the states are accounted for."

Have you ever in your life seen a presidential election (excepting 2000) or even read about one?

From the interesting turn of events in Jefferson vs. Adams. To Henry Clay's decison with John Q. Adams. To Jackson making his return. How the Freeport Doctrine effected Lincoln's election.

The election where TR came back as a third party and Wilson was elected.

I have read up on the election of 1960. The primaries of 1968 where RFK was shot. Election 76 where Ford had to answer to his pardon of Nixon and where the peanut farmer won.

The primary of 1980 where Ted Kennedy dropped out and gave the torch to Carter so that it would later be extinguished by Reagan.

The election of George H.W. Bush and his demise in 92. Of course Dole vs Clinton is still in my memory.

These are the ones that come to mind at once.
So yes, I know a few presidental elections. The various characters that have played roles in them. From Henry Clay's multiple runs to William Jennings Bryan and the crosses of Gold speech.

I'll ignore your petty and rather lame attempts to insult me and simply continue to point out to you -- for the next four years -- that all the hatred you and your people could generate for Bush was nowhere near the energy those who support him were able to muster. He got the most popular votes for any president in history, and he is the first since 1936 to win re-election while gaining seats in both houses of Congress.

"I don't know how you can say this is the greatest victory in recent elections."

Were you capable of reading at all, you may have noticed that I never actually said that. I simply pointed out correctly that no one in history has ever received more popular votes in the US. You have quite an imagination. Or perhaps (more likely) you just see questions and statements to which one of your limited responses may apply, despite the fact that no one is actually asking such questions or making such claims.

But I have very low expectations regarding your capacity for comprehension, so you do at least consistently meet those expectations.

I am simply pointing out for everyone that this is not a major victory, put simply it is the result of a high voter turn out.

I usually respond to different comments or opinions.
Yet all I can do is think about what a sad creature you are. I could care less what your opinion of me is. I do have to have doubts about what kind of person you are that you have nothing to do in your life but try to bash other people.

I could really care less what you think.
You have proved over and over again that you have nothing to discuss but people and how they are personally. I don't respect your opinions at all.

Anyway continue Rhett. If you have nothing better to do, continue to make wild assertions without any proof.

"Anyway continue Rhett. If you have nothing better to do, continue to make wild assertions without any proof."

Let's take a look at the "wild assertions" I've made in this thread.

1 -- "You do realize that Bush is over 270 electoral votes even if all those states go to Kerry, right?"
Here I imply that 270 electoral votes are required for a nominee to win the presidency. This is hardly a "wild assertion," as it is stated in the Constitution.

2. -- "I'm Darth_AYBABTU, and I approved this message."
I am Darth_AYBABTU, and I did approve that message.

3 -- "He got the most popular votes for any president in history, and he is the first since 1936 to win re-election while gaining seats in both houses of Congress."
Were you literate you would learn that this also is hardly a "wild assertion," as Bush actually did receive more popular votes than any presidential candidate in history. Additionally, he is the first to be re-elected with more votes than before, and to see his party gain seats in the House and Senate, since 1936. He is the first Republican to do so since 1900. These aren't wild assertions. These are facts.

4 -- "Good Lord. English speakers across the world lose everytime you post something."
You so egregiously butcher all the rules of language that educated people tend to obey that I honestly often find it difficult to read your posts. (Not to mention the fact that they are filled with ignorant nonsense and wild flinging of general idiocy.) So my "wild assertion" here is that you are apparently ignorant of all the rules of grammar that all the rest of us learned in elementary school. This is made ironic by the fact that you whined to me on AIM a while back about Sebulba's grammar in one of his tasks, while simultaneously spouting the drivel of an uneducated 2nd grader who is having problems with his Weekly Reader. Anyone with nominal awareness of how literate adults speak and write would look at your posts and come to the same conclusions regarding your ignorance of proper language that I have. Again, this is hardly a "wild assertion."

5 -- "But I have very low expectations regarding your capacity for comprehension, so you do at least consistently meet those expectations."
Again, not a "wild assertion." I do have low standards for you, and you do consistently live down to them.

So maybe the real issue here is deeper than the notion that you are simply ignorant of the way educated adults speak. Perhaps you simply speak a different language than the rest of us. In your language, maybe "make wild assertions" really means "repeatedly cite factual evidence that makes Seldon look foolish."